The influx of digital video recorders, either completely digital or hybrids, unto the marketplace has compounded the issues of the performance of video networks by giving the end users a false sense of security afforded by the remote connectivity nature of their machine's operation.
This is clearly indicated by the fact that those digital video recorders basically replace analog video recorders and are component, not system based solutions. As the wording would imply, a component-based solution rarely, if ever, looks at the whole of the components around its borders to properly integrate and produce results. A single component cannot control the quality and integrity of the devices connected to it. Stated simply, once the digital video recorder is installed, nothing will let the users know of current failures or give them the ability to automatically verify performance across their network of operations. In some cases, failures can only be discovered once an end user manually calls the remote site and requests an error file download. Another known method is to have the remote machine call into a central area once a failure is detected, such as a loss of video, which of course is only possible if the CPU, modems, and software are still able to perform such a task and if no generalized failure causes all machines to simultaneously connect to the central site and crash the communication links or any authenticating process.
Current digital video recorder solutions are not able to periodically and automatically send crucial pre-programmed centrally directed information so as to continuously adjust various functions, to elevate performance and to offer greater peace of mind. This commonly accepted operational philosophy actually renders the end user blind as to the performance levels of the multitude of recorders and associated devices over his network. Furthermore, the operator is unable to detect even minor deviation issues which can greatly affect image quality and output precision. These deviations can for example include a defaced camera where the image rendered is unacceptable, basic video data having color burst or missing or incorrect synch. The basic “video loss” detection methods employed in the industry are unable to react to such variations. This has a great impact on criminal case to be resolved in video security systems and also applies to video systems used for process control, automation and video monitoring as the image output depends solely on the healthy functionality of the video system, with no concrete and quantifiable verification of operation. The output precision and accuracy is a major factor in rendering identifiable images which can be used for case prosecution or any post analysis work.
The manual option of locating errors is not practical or even possible when a large number of machines must be verified. No known current technology can automatically detect, verify, align/adjust parameters and/or alert via multiple methods and levels. In addition, no prior art digital video recorder or system can report the complete sequence for evaluation or analysis regardless of the make of digital video recorder in use.
Some forms of monitoring or diagnostic of camera networks in general are known in the prior art. For example, published US patent application no. U.S. 2003/0081125 A1 (SHELDON et al.), concerns a system and method for monitoring and diagnosis of a video network's performance. The invention is particularly directed to a video conferencing system and provides a diagnosis node, ensuring proper transmission of video data from each device. It does not, however, address the question of proper working of the video devices of the network. U.S. Pat. No. 4,774,570 (ARAKI) concerns a system for processing video signals for detecting changes in video data. It belongs to the field of security monitoring systems including a network of cameras. An automatic analysis of the image recorded by the cameras is made to detect a change therein and therefore identify activity in the field of vision of the camera. Again, however, this invention is not related to diagnosis of the camera's proper functioning. U.S. Pat. No. 4,566,036 (KADOSAWA), U.S. Pat. No. 4,609,939 (KOZAWA et al.), U.S. Pat. No. 5,568,183 (CORTJENS et al.), U.S. Pat. No. 6,208,379 (OYA et al.) and US published patent applications nos. U.S. 2002/0171741 A1 (TONKIN et al.) and U.S. 2003/0206232 A1 (SUZUKI et al.), all relate to the positioning and control of cameras in a video network system.
None of the documents above provides for the diagnosis of components of a digital video recording network such as cameras, digital video recorders and peripheral devices, and for an automatic checking of their proper functioning. Such concepts are known for single cameras, such as taught by U.S. Pat. No. 5,274,446 (ASHIDA). ASHIDA provides a transmission apparatus with self-diagnostic capabilities. It is more particularly directed to television conference systems. It provides a camera apparatus which is not only capable of self diagnosis, but provides such information automatically and is also capable of recovery for a detected flaw if it occurs. Its working is based on image comparison between video signals acquired at different times. It does not however seem to mention the integration of such a camera in a digital video network. Similarly, U.S. Pat. No. 4,544,952 (PHAM VAN CANG), U.S. Pat. No. 4,608,593 (MIYAJI et al.), U.S. Pat. No. 4,901,147 (TAJIMA), U.S. Pat. No. 5,055,928 (KLINGELHOFER) and U.S. Pat. No. 5,778,008 (SHIMIZU et al.), all concern some form of diagnosis of a single camera device. However, these documents fail to teach how such diagnostic capabilities could apply in the context of a network of cameras or video recorders and associated devices.
In view of the above, there is therefore a need for a manner of providing automatic diagnostics and repair of digital video systems over a network which is practical and can be used for networks having a large number of cameras.